Slashdot Mirror
US Government Will Be Scanning Your Face At 20 Top Airports, Documents Show (buzzfeednews.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order expediting the deployment of biometric verification of the identities of all travelers crossing its borders. That mandate stipulates facial recognition identification for "100 percent of all international passengers," including American citizens, in the top 20 US airports by 2021. Now, the United States Department of Homeland Security is rushing to get those systems up and running at airports across the country. But it's doing so in the absence of proper vetting, regulatory safeguards, and what some privacy advocates argue is in defiance of the law.
According to 346 pages of as-yet-unpublished documents obtained by the nonprofit research organization Electronic Privacy Information Center, US Customs and Border Protection is scrambling to implement this "biometric entry-exit system," with the goal of using facial recognition technology on travelers aboard 16,300 flights per week -- or more than 100 million passengers traveling on international flights out of the United States -- in as little as two years, to meet Trump's accelerated timeline for a biometric system that had initially been signed into law by the Obama administration. This, despite questionable biometric confirmation rates and few, if any, legal guardrails.
These same documents state -- explicitly -- that there were no limits on how partnering airlines can use this facial recognition data. CBP did not answer specific questions about whether there are any guidelines for how other technology companies involved in processing the data can potentially also use it. It was only during a data privacy meeting last December that CBP made a sharp turn and limited participating companies from using this data. But it is unclear to what extent it has enforced this new rule. CBP did not explain what its current policies around data sharing of biometric information with participating companies and third-party firms are, but it did say that the agency "retains photos ... for up to 14 days" of non-US citizens departing the country, for "evaluation of the technology" and "assurance of the accuracy of the algorithms" -- which implies such photos might be used for further training of its facial matching AI.
According to 346 pages of as-yet-unpublished documents obtained by the nonprofit research organization Electronic Privacy Information Center, US Customs and Border Protection is scrambling to implement this "biometric entry-exit system," with the goal of using facial recognition technology on travelers aboard 16,300 flights per week -- or more than 100 million passengers traveling on international flights out of the United States -- in as little as two years, to meet Trump's accelerated timeline for a biometric system that had initially been signed into law by the Obama administration. This, despite questionable biometric confirmation rates and few, if any, legal guardrails.
These same documents state -- explicitly -- that there were no limits on how partnering airlines can use this facial recognition data. CBP did not answer specific questions about whether there are any guidelines for how other technology companies involved in processing the data can potentially also use it. It was only during a data privacy meeting last December that CBP made a sharp turn and limited participating companies from using this data. But it is unclear to what extent it has enforced this new rule. CBP did not explain what its current policies around data sharing of biometric information with participating companies and third-party firms are, but it did say that the agency "retains photos ... for up to 14 days" of non-US citizens departing the country, for "evaluation of the technology" and "assurance of the accuracy of the algorithms" -- which implies such photos might be used for further training of its facial matching AI.
I'm not the OP but:
Depends where you're from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And: so that's only (quick maths) 10800 gun deaths a year that aren't suicide-related...?
9/11 was a big attack. It was an atrocity. On the scale of atrocities worldwide, over time, even from the 1960's onwards, it really doesn't justify the response that it incurred. It's arguable that the US has killed many more innocent civilians in its response than were killed in the incident itself - they just weren't American, so they don't get counted, right?
The latter is the bigger problem and in critical need of being addressed by the federal government.
All data indicates that the vast majority of those in the US illegally entered through "authorized ports of entry". Building a wall is like pulling over the car going 60 in a 55 zone while ignoring the car going 100.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Its not callous to point out our insane response. We have been on a war footing ever since. 3000 lives pales in comparison to the blood spent since 9/11
Good-bye
The research suggests it's down to improving conditions worldwide. There really isn't a third world anymore, and for the first time in history less than half the people in the world are poor. Improved conditions apply to the developed world as well: most terrorism is domestic.
Police and intelligence are important for heading off the nut jobs that remain, but reducing the number of desperate people with nothing to lose is a more effective strategy in the long run, and doesn't involve police states.
Since the majority of terrorism is domestic, particularly in the US, strong border controls and foreign intelligence doesn't really help much. It's been noted that, going by the numbers, if the US wanted to reduce terrorism by closing their borders, The rest of the US states should close their borders with North Carolina.
You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.
Not likely. 9/11 was a one-off suicide attack by irrational religious fundamentalists. It probably wasn't even all that preventable.
Out of 180,000 lung cancer deaths a year an estimated 85% are caused by tobacco use. Considering that a simple law outlawing the sale of tobacco could save upwards of 153,000 people a year (that's 51 9/11's a year) from an early death, I would say that lung cancer deaths are much more tragic than 9/11.
I don't respond to AC's.